Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Rake Sampling to Estimate Biomass of Submersed Aquatic Vegetation in Coastal Wetlands

  • Applied Wetland Science
  • Published:
Wetlands Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We evaluated two rake-enclosure sampling methods for estimating biomass of submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV) within managed tidal impoundments (MTIs) in the Ashepoo-Combahee-Edisto Rivers Basin, South Carolina. We collected SAV using a modified rake within 0.086 m2 cylindrical sampler (CS), a non-modified rake within 0.2-m2 quadrat (QS), and after raking, hand-collected remaining SAV within each enclosure (i.e., rake + hand = total SAV biomass). We used linear mixed models to evaluate rake sampling methods to estimate total (QS and CS) and species-specific SAV biomass (QS). The marginal coefficient of determination (R2) for both rake sampling methods was 0.95 for estimating total SAV biomass and model fitted values met our a priori acceptable level of precision (CV ≤ 15–20%). Furthermore, the QS-rake method explained 95% of the variation in total widgeongrass biomass (Ruppia maritima), 97% of dwarf spikerush biomass (Eleocharis parvula), and 97% of muskgrass (Chara spp.) biomass but model fitted values only met a priori precision for widgeongrass biomass. We conclude that our rake-SAV sampling estimates total SAV and widgeongrass biomass with little unexplained variation. Furthermore, abiotic variables had no significant effect when estimating SAV biomass. We suggest managers and researchers use our rake methods to estimate biomass of SAV in wetlands with similar species compositions, and resulting estimates may be used to estimate foraging carrying capacity for habitat conservation planning and management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adair SE, Moore JL, Onuf CP (1994) Distribution and state of submerged vegeation in estuaries of the upper Texas coast. Wetlands 14:110–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballard BM, Thompson JE, Petrie MJ, Chekett M, Hewitt DG (2004) Diet and nutrition of northern pintails along the southern coast of Texas. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:371–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker BM, Walker SC (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67:1–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer BA (2018) Effects of hydrological management for submersed aquatic vegetation biomass and invertebrate biomass and diversity in South Carolina coastal impoundments. Thesis. Clemson University, Clemson, SC

  • Bauer BA, Kaminski RM, Lanham JD, Gerard PD, Wiggers EP (2020) Hydrological management for submersed aquatic vegetation in South Carolina coastal impoundments. Wildlife Society Bulletin (in press)

  • Beach, V. C (2014) Rice & ducks: The surprising convergence that saved the Carolina Lowcountry. Evening Post Books, Charleston, South Carolina, USA

  • Bolduc F, Afton AD (2005) Sediments in marsh ponds of the Gulf coast Chenier plain: effects of structural marsh management and salinity. Wetlands Ecology and Management 13:395–404

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Callicut JT, Hagy HM, Schummer ML (2011) The food preference paradigm: a review of autumn–winter food use by north American dabbling ducks (1900–2009). Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 2:29–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho HJ, Poirrier MA (2005) Response of submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV) in Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana to the 1997–2001 El Niño southern oscillation shifts. Estuaries 28:215–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coluccy JM, Castelli MV, Castelli PM, Simpson JW, McWilliams SR, Armstrong L (2015) True metabolizable energy of American black duck foods. The Journal of Wildlife Management 79:344–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2018) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria

  • Couvillion BR, Beck H (2013) Marsh collapse thresholds for coastal Louisiana estimated using elevation and vegetation index data. Journal of Coastal Research 63:58–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downing JA, Anderson MR (1985) Estimating the standing biomass of aquatic macrophytes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42:1860–1869

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duarte CM, Chiscano CL (1999) Seagrass biomass and production: a reassessment. Aquatic Botany 65:159–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duarte CM, Merino M, Agawin NSR, Uri J, Fortes MD, Gallegos ME, Marba N, Hemminga MA (1998) Root production and belowground seagrass biomass. Marine Ecology Progress Series 171:97–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein MB, Joyner RL (1998) Waterbird use of brackish wetlands managed for waterfowl. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 42:476–490

    Google Scholar 

  • Etikan I, Musa SA, Alkassim RS (2016) Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics 5:1–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon DH, Gray BT, Perry RD, Prevost MB, Strange TH, Williams RK (1989) South Atlantic coastal wetlands. In: Smith LM, Pederson RL, Kaminski RM (eds) Habitat management for migrating and wintering waterfowl in North America. Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock pp 57–92

  • Gordon DH, Gray BT, Kaminski RM (1998) Dabbling duck habitat associations during winter in coastal South Carolina. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:569–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gross MC, McClain SE, Lancaster JD, Jacques CN, Davis JB, Simpson JW, Yetter AP, Hagy HM (2020) Variation in true metabolizable energy among aquatic vegetation and ducks. Journal of Wildlife Management. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21832

  • Folk TH (2016) South Carolina’s Rice Fields: how an agricultural empire created a conservation legacy. In: Folk TH, Wiggers EP, Harrigal D, Purcell M (eds) Rice fields for wildlife: history, management recommendations, and regulatory guidelines for South Carolina’s managed tidal impoundments. Nemours Wildlife Foundation, Yemassee, South Carolina pp 1–6

  • Hagy HM, Kaminski RM (2012) Apparent seed use by ducks in moist-soil wetlands of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Journal of Wildlife Management 76:1053–1061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harley CDG, Hughes RA, Hutlgren KM, Miner BG, Sorte CJ, Thornber CS, Rodriguez LF, Tomanek L, Williams SL (2006) The impacts of climate change in coastal marine systems. Ecology Letters 9:228–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman E. R, DeMarco K. E, and Peyre M. L (2016) Establishing a baseline of estuarine submerged aquatic vegetation resouces across salinity zones within coastal areas of the northern Gulf of Mexico

  • Johnson JA, Newman RM (2011) A comparison of two methods for sampling biomass of aquatic plants. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 49:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaminski RM, Davis JB, Essig HW, Gerard PD, Reinecke KJ (2003) True metabolizable energy for wood ducks from acorns compared to other waterfowl foods. The Journal of Wildlife Management 67:542–550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kantrud, H. A (1991) Widgeongrass (Ruppia maritima L.): a literature review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fish and Wildlife Research 10, Washington, D.C., USA

  • Kenow KP, Lyon JE, Hines RK, Elfessi A (2007) Estimating biomass of submersed vegetation using simple rake sampling technique. Hydrobiologia. 575:447–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch E. W (2001) Beyond light: physical, geological, and geochemical parameters as possible submersed aquatic vegetation habitat requirements 24:1–17

  • Läärä E (2009) Statistics: reasoning on uncertainty, and the insignificant of testing null. Annales Zoologici Fennici 46:590–599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster J, McClain SE, Gross MC, Jacques CN, Masto NM, Kaminski RM, Hagy HM (2019) Assessment of excreta collection methods to estimate true metabolizable energy of waterfowl foods in wild ducks. Wildlife Society Bulletin 43:282–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masto N. M (2019) Evaluation of aerial surveys to monitor fall–winter waterbird populations in South Carolina. Thesis. Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA

  • McClain SE, Hagy HM, Hine CS, Yetter AP, Jacques CN, Simpson JW (2019) Restoration Ecology 27:168–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merino JH, Nyman JA, Michot T (2005) Effects of season and marsh management on submerged aquatic vegetation in coastal Louisiana brackish marsh ponds. Ecological Restoration 23:235–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H (2013) A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 4:133–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) Committee (2018) North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) 2018 update: connecting people, waterfowl and wetlands. U.S. Department of the Interior, Environment Canada, and Environment and Natural Resources Mexico, Washington, D.C., USA

  • Prevost M. B (1987) Management of plant communities for waterfowl in coastal South Carolina. Pages 167–183 in W. R. Whitman and W. H. Meredith, editors. Waterfowl and wetlands symposium: proceeding of a symposium on waterfowl and wetlands management in the coastal zone of the Atlantic flyway. Delaware coastal management program, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, 16 September–19 September 1986, Dover, USA

  • Ringelman KM, Williams CK, Coluccy JM (2015) Assessing uncertainty in coastal marsh core sampling for waterfowl foods. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 6:238–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodusky AJ, Sharfstein B, East TL, Maki RP (2005) A comparison of three methods to collect submerged aquatic vegetation in a shallow lake. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 110:87–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenzweig MS, Parker BC (2002) Turion production by Ruppia maritima in Chesapeake Bay. Rhodora 104:309–311

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith RV, Stafford JD, Yetter AP, Horath MM, Hine CS, Hoover JP (2012) Foraging ecology of fall-migrating shorebirds in the Illinois River valley. PLoS One 7(9):e45121. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0045121

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (2012) Wildlife management plan: Bear Island wildlife management area, May 2012

  • Stafford JD, Kaminski RM, Reinecke KJ, Manley SW (2006) Waste rice for waterfowl in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:61–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swiderek PK, Johnson AS, Hale PE, Joyner RL (1988) Production, management, and waterfowl use of sea purslane, gulf coast muskgrass, and widgeongrass in brackish impoundments. In: Weller MW (ed) Waterfowl in winter. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp 441–457

    Google Scholar 

  • Tompkins M. E (1986) Scope and status of coastal wetland impoundments in South Carolina. Pages 31–57 in M.R. DeVoe and D.S. Baughman, editors. South Carolina coastal wetland impoundments: ecological characterization, management, status, and use. Vol. II: technical synthesis. Publication no. SC-SG-TR-86-2. South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium, Charleston, USA

  • Touchette BW, Burkholder JM (2000) Overview of physiological ecology of carbon metabolism in seagrasses. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 250:169–205

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Williams CK, Dugger BD, Brasher MG, Coluccy MJ, Hagy HM, Livolsi M, McWilliams SR, Petrie M, Soulliere GJ, Tirpak JM, Webb EB (2014) Estimating habitat carrying capacity for migrating and wintering waterfowl: considerations, pitfalls and improvements. Wildfowl 4:407–435

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams RK, Perry RD, Prevost MB (2016) Management of South Atlantic coastal wetlands for waterfowl and other wildlife. In: Folk TH, Wiggers EP, Harrigal D, Purcell M (eds) Rice fields for wildlife: history, management recommendations, and regulatory guidelines for South Carolina’s managed tidal impoundments. Nemours Wildlife Foundation, Yemassee, South Carolina, pp 23–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin Y, Kreiling RM (2011) The evaluation of a rake method to quantify submersed vegetation in the upper Mississippi river. Hydrobiologia 675:187–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin Y, Winkelman J. S and Langrehr H. A (2000) Long Term Resource Monitoring program procedure: aquatic vegetation monitoring. U.S. Geological Survey. http://www.umesc.usgs.gov/documents/reports/ltrm_components/vegetation/95p00207.pdf.

  • Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Elphick CS (2010) A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 1:3–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Nemours Wildlife Foundation, Clemson University’s James C. Kennedy Waterfowl and Wetlands Conservation Center, and Clemson University Creative Inquiry and the University Professional Internship Co-op Programs for providing funding and logistical support. We thank all Clemson-Kennedy-Nemours Creative Inquiry undergraduate students for assisting with data and submersed aquatic vegetation processing. We appreciate Daniel Barrineau and the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources for providing access to Bear Island Wildlife Management Area. Finally, we are grateful to the associate editor and two anonymous reviewers who significantly improved the quality of this manuscript. This work is completed under Technical Contribution No. 6859 of the Clemson University Experiment Station.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Nicholas M. Masto

    Present address: Department of Biology, Pennebaker Hall, Tennessee Technological University, 1100 N. Dixie Avenue, Cookeville, TN, 38501, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. James C. Kennedy Waterfowl & Wetlands Conservation Center, Belle W. Baruch Institute of Coastal Ecology and Forest Science, Clemson University, Georgetown, SC, 29442, USA

    Nicholas M. Masto & Richard M. Kaminski

  2. Department of Forestry and Environmental Conservation, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, 29634, USA

    Nicholas M. Masto, Richard M. Kaminski, Caroline Sharpe & Robert C. Leland

  3. Nemours Wildlife Foundation, Yemassee, SC, 29945, USA

    Beau A. Bauer & Ernie Wiggers

  4. School of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, 29634, USA

    Patrick D. Gerard

Authors
  1. Nicholas M. Masto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Beau A. Bauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Richard M. Kaminski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Caroline Sharpe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Robert C. Leland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ernie Wiggers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Patrick D. Gerard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicholas M. Masto.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Masto, N.M., Bauer, B.A., Kaminski, R.M. et al. Rake Sampling to Estimate Biomass of Submersed Aquatic Vegetation in Coastal Wetlands. Wetlands 40, 957–966 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-020-01296-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-020-01296-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation